In his decision dated 14 March 2003 (BL O/070/03) the Hearing Officer had considered a modified request for partial revocation and granted the relief sought, albeit using different wording in setting down a new specification for the registered mark.

On appeal the registered proprietor (Acer) claimed that the Hearing Officer had granted wider relief than sought by the applicant (Altus) and that in any event Altus submitted that it should be allowed to retain "services being computer programmes".

The Appointed Person considered the Hearing Officer’s decision in detail and also the papers which had been filed in the proceedings. As to the first point the Appointed Person accepted that the modified request for revocation was somewhat ambiguous but both parties appeared to be aware of what was at stake and he therefore did not believe that the Hearing Officer had granted relief in excess of that sought by Acer.

As regards the second point, this was a matter of fact and there was no evidence filed which showed that Altus had used their mark ALTOS in relation to the sale of computer software. The request to retain "servers being computer programmes" could not, therefore, be sustained. Appeal dismissed.